FACTS: Within a period of 1 year, 2 impeachment proceedings were filed

against Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide. The justiciable

controversy in this case was the constitutionality of the subsequent filing
of a second complaint to controvert the rules of impeachment provided for
by law.

ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of the second impeachment complaint

against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. with the House of
Representatives is constitutional, and whether the resolution thereof is a
political question — has resulted in a political crisis.

HELD: Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in

Impeachment Proceedings which were approved by the House of
Representativesare unconstitutional. Consequently, the second
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, is barred
under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.

REASONING: In passing over the complex issues arising from the

controversy, this Court is ever mindful of the essential truth that the
inviolate doctrine of separation of powers among the legislative, executive
or judicial branches of government by no means prescribes for absolute
autonomy in the discharge by each of that part of the governmental power
assigned to it by the sovereign people.
At the same time, the corollary doctrine of checks and balances which has
been carefully calibrated by the Constitution to temper the official acts of
each of these three branches must be given effect without destroying their
indispensable co-equality. There exists no constitutional basis for the
contention that the exercise of judicial review over impeachment
proceedings would upset the system of checks and balances. Verily, the
Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and “one section is not to be
allowed to defeat another.” Both are integral components of the calibrated
system of independence and interdependence that insures that no branch
of government act beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution also understood initiation in its ordinary
meaning. Thus when a proposal reached the floor proposing that “A vote
of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary…
to initiate impeachment proceedings,” this was met by a proposal to delete
the line on the ground that the vote of the House does not initiate
impeachment proceeding but rather the filing of a complaint does.
Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing and
referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House
Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of the members
of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House,
the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an
impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment
complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one year
period.
The Court in the present petitions subjected to judicial scrutiny and
resolved on the merits only the main issue of whether the impeachment
proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice transgressed the
constitutionally imposed one-year time bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go
about assuming jurisdiction where it had none, nor indiscriminately turn
justiciable issues out of decidedly political questions. Because it is not at
all the business of this Court to assert judicial dominance over the other
two great branches of the government.